Something big is about to happen on the sun. According to measurements from NASA-supported observatories, the sun’s vast magnetic field is about to flip.

“It looks like we’re no more than 3 to 4 months away from a complete field reversal,” says solar physicist Todd Hoeksema of Stanford University. “This change will have ripple effects throughout the solar system.”

A new ScienceCast video anticipates the reversal of the sun’s global magnetic field.

The sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of ‘Solar Max’ will be behind us, with half yet to come.

Hoeksema is the director of Stanford’s Wilcox Solar Observatory, one of the few observatories in the world that monitor the sun’s polar magnetic fields. The poles are a herald of change. Just as Earth scientists watch our planet’s polar regions for signs of climate change, solar physicists do the same thing for the sun. Magnetograms at Wilcox have been tracking the sun’s polar magnetism since 1976, and they have recorded three grand reversals—with a fourth in the offing.

Astronomers at the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) monitor the sun’s global magnetic field on a daily basis. WSO home page

Solar physicist Phil Scherrer, also at Stanford, describes what happens: “The sun’s polar magnetic fields weaken, go to zero, and then emerge again with the opposite polarity. This is a regular part of the solar cycle.”

A reversal of the sun’s magnetic field is, literally, a big event. The domain of the sun’s magnetic influence (also known as the “heliosphere”) extends billions of kilometers beyond Pluto. Changes to the field’s polarity ripple all the way out to the Voyager probes, on the doorstep of interstellar space.

When solar physicists talk about solar field reversals, their conversation often centers on the “current sheet.” The current sheet is a sprawling surface jutting outward from the sun’s equator where the sun’s slowly-rotating magnetic field induces an electrical current. The current itself is small, only one ten-billionth of an amp per square meter (0.0000000001 amps/m2), but there’s a lot of it: the amperage flows through a region 10,000 km thick and billions of kilometers wide. Electrically speaking, the entire heliosphere is organized around this enormous sheet.

During field reversals, the current sheet becomes very wavy. Scherrer likens the undulations to the seams on a baseball. As Earth orbits the sun, we dip in and out of the current sheet. Transitions from one side to another can stir up stormy space weather around our planet.

An artist’s concept of the heliospheric current sheet, which becomes more wavy when the sun’s magnetic field flips. More

Cosmic rays are also affected. These are high-energy particles accelerated to nearly light speed by supernova explosions and other violent events in the galaxy. Cosmic rays are a danger to astronauts and space probes, and some researchers say they might affect the cloudiness and climate of Earth. The current sheet acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, deflecting them as they attempt to penetrate the inner solar system. A wavy, crinkly sheet acts as a better shield against these energetic particles from deep space.

As the field reversal approaches, data from Wilcox show that the sun’s two hemispheres are out of synch.

“The sun’s north pole has already changed sign, while the south pole is racing to catch up,” says Scherrer. “Soon, however, both poles will be reversed, and the second half of Solar Max will be underway.”

When that happens, Hoeksema and Scherrer will share the news with their colleagues and the public.

216 thoughts on “The sun is about to have a flipping magnetic field reversal”

When the reversal happens, is there a period in which there is – for all practical purposes – NO magnetic field?

The GCR theory of cloud formation says that during quiet sun stages, a low magnitude solar magnetic field results in more clouds and cooler temperatures on Earth. Archibald and Hathaway suggests that the Earth will cool during the next few years because of this. If this is true, and there is a period of several months of weak-to-no solar magnetic field, should we not expect a coincident increase in global cloud cover (even if it is too short an interval to result in a temperature drop)?

We have satellite monitoring now, as well as the Earthshine project: I’d like to see a comparison of Earth’s albedo vs magnetic strength at the null points. If we have 3 peiods (including this upcoming one) we should see the impact, as the CERN experiment showed the impact of increased GCR to be both signficicant and immediate.

Interesting that the previous reversals have occurred at around ten years apart and this one looks close to 14 years. The strength of the previous magnetic fields is obvious in the graph, this maybe a better indicator of both cycle length and the effect on our climate.

Doug Proctor says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:15 pmWhen the reversal happens, is there a period in which there is – for all practical purposes – NO magnetic field?
At a pole reversal the magnetic field goes away at that pole. There is plenty of magnetic field elsewhere on the Sun to make up for the disappearing polar fields. When the field at a pole disappears it is soon followed by a build up of field with the opposite polarity drifting up from lower latitudes.

” Just as Earth scientists watch our planet’s polar regions for signs of climate change”. What was the purpose of randomly including this sentence. I disrupted my interest in the subject, just as I have to turn off each and every nature show approximately 10 minutes before the end because they absolutely positively will say something about climate change.

wayne Job says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:21 pmThe strength of the previous magnetic fields is obvious in the graph, this maybe a better indicator of both cycle length
The polar fields at minimum are a good indicator of the strength of the next solar cycle. The cycle length is not the fundamental parameter, for example: cycle 4 was a very strong cycle [Peak sunspot number 141], but was 15 years long.

Pedantic old Fart says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pmdo field reversals happen in a similar manner for the earth, Iie. no total loss of field but a redistribution?
No, the solar polar fields simply disappear but come back reversed. But this is only something that happens near the poles.

Bill Marsh says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:31 pmDoes that mean the Sun is a monopole?
No, as there is plenty of magnetic fields elsewhere on the Sun.

Dr. Svalgaard, the amplitude of the last few cycles appears to be decreasing, almost in a regular fashion. What is the explanation for this? Also, is there proxy or other evidence that would suggest that these changes in amplitude are part of some larger, regular cycle? thank you.

righttimewrongplace says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:42 pmWhat is that line in the first chart saying “prediction made” referring to?
The time at which we used the solar polar field strength to predict the size of the current cycle 24.

kevin Roche says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:43 pmthe amplitude of the last few cycles appears to be decreasing, almost in a regular fashion. What is the explanation for this? Also, is there proxy or other evidence that would suggest that these changes in amplitude are part of some larger, regular cycle?
There does seem to be a longer [100 years] ‘cycle’ in sunspot numbers http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php It is not known why and the ‘cycle’ is likely just a temporary thing; it didn’t exist before 1700 and may not exist after 2013.

righttimewrongplace says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:43 pmCan a peak in the Sun Spot Number occur after a flip?
Absolutely. See how many peaks there were in this cycle: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

Robert Wykoff at 5:25 pm “… just as I have to turn off each and every nature show approximately 10 minutes before the end because they absolutely positively will say something about climate change.”

On Vermont Public Radio it is a rare program or news byte that doesn’t lay the random ills of the earth on global-warming-climate-change. My seven year old picks up on it and, from the back seat, says “blah,blah,blah, right dad?”

“Half of solar max yet to come”? That’s what the video says. Does not sound accurate to me. Half of the solar cycle or the progression to solar minimum makes more sense. But then, I’m not a solar scientist. Leif?

The article does not mention the mention the pioneering work done by the JAXA team and the Hinode satellite where for the first time the north pole field reversal was observed, there is no instant process, complementary work.

This was observed spring 2012.

I would expect there to be great interest in any completion of reversal, if it is, given we saw the start.

Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I am sorry I did not ask my second question correctly. Is it common for a new cycle high in the smoothed SSN to occur after a flip or is it very likely we have seen the high for this cycle (twin peak or not.) Thanks!

There does seem to be a longer [100 years] ‘cycle’ in sunspot numbers http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php It is not known why and the ‘cycle’ is likely just a temporary thing; it didn’t exist before 1700 and may not exist after 2013.
===============================================
What is your basis for stating that it didn’t exist before 1700? OK, we have the Maunder minimum for the preceeding 50 years. But before that?

And what is your reason for supposing that it “may” not exist after 2013?

Bill_W says:
August 5, 2013 at 6:03 pmBut then, I’m not a solar scientist.
For a low cycle the ‘maximum’ is a long, drawn-out affair lasting several years with a polar field reversal halfway through…

tchannon says:
August 5, 2013 at 6:17 pmThe article does not mention the mention the pioneering work done by the JAXA team and the Hinode satellite where for the first time the north pole field reversal was observed
Because that work was not pioneering at all, just the Japanese not knowing the literature, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf

August 5, 2013 at 6:20 pmis it very likely we have seen the high for this cycle (twin peak or not.)
There will be more to come. The very notion of a ‘maximum’ becomes fuzzy and ill-defined for a cycle like SC24 and SC14.

StuartMcL says:
August 5, 2013 at 6:45 pmWhat is your basis for stating that it didn’t exist before 1700? OK, we have the Maunder minimum for the preceeding 50 years. But before that?
We have about 10,000 years of cosmic ray proxies for solar activity and the ‘100-yr’ wave does not seem to exist in the earlier data.

And what is your reason for supposing that it “may” not exist after 2013?
I have reasons to believe that we may have another Maunder-type minimum, but that is speculation, of course, hence the may. You can see some of my reasons for this here: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf

Leif, I’ve been meaning to ask your opinion on something, and this seems like a good time. If we are headed towards a Maunder-style minimum, what are your thoughts regarding as to how that would happen at the just over half a precession cycle old interglacial?

The premise for my question incorporates the parallel debate on just how long the Holocene will last, and considerable reading of the links that you post. Essentially I am asking what your thoughts are on the duration of the Holocene.

The article stated the wavy sheet is a better deflector of cosmic rays. Therefore, we should be seeing fewer clouds and more input of solar energy into the Earth’s climate system. Who knows, maybe the ocean’s just sucking it all in.

William McClenney says:
August 5, 2013 at 7:29 pmEssentially I am asking what your thoughts are on the duration of the Holocene.
The slide into a new glaciation has always been slow and drawn-out so we are talking about thousands of years in the future. Not something we should worry about today. There are even arguments that the next glaciation will be longer off than usual, because the Earth’s orbit is becoming more circular.

still frozen…Part of the reason for the ice free caps millions of years ago was the continental configuration. With North and South America separated by a shallow sea rather than the isthmus of Panama, there is thought that the ocean circulation patterns mixed the waters differently. (of course I would get a geologist to confirm that, as I am going by what I read in passing rather than something I have done a detailed study of. I likely have the mechanism off a bit.)

The earth does experience field reversals, but they are quite different — not a regular cycle like the sun, but rather abrupt transitions that happen in intervals of 50,000 years up to millions of years. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal).

still frozen in Canada, ldd says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:07 pmLeif, does that mean when there were no polar caps millions of years ago, earth had a different orbit?
For the orbital mechanism to work other conditions have to be ‘just right’, such as the precise location of land masses and ocean currents.

noaaprogrammer says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:11 pmWhat about the size of that circular orbit? Will it be increasing because the sun is loosing mass over time?
no, any mass changes are much too small.

OssQss says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:29 pmLeif, please elaborate on the graph, and its representative trends.
It shows the polar fields measured at two observatories [Mt. Wilson (blue) and Wilcox (red), scaled to match when they overlap]. To eliminate an annual variation and any zero-level errors, I plot the difference between the North polar field and the South polar field. I also plot a ‘ghost’ of the field with its sigh reversed [shown in lighter colors]. That allows you to compare the trend more easily.

the Hermit says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:36 pmAccording to this, both the North and South poles have crossed
The plot from Wilcox [and mine] is the one to consider. The notion of a sharp flip is incorrect, since the North and South poles change sign at different times. My plot shows the average difference [which flipped more than a month ago]. Another [equally valid] definition would be to say that the field has only flipped when the last shred of the old field has vanished. This may take another few months.

tchannon says:
August 5, 2013 at 6:17 pmI posted an article on this from where you can find links to the original material.
In that article you show that you do not know what you are talking about. The strong annual variation is not ‘noise’ due to ground-based data, but a real effect coming about because the Sun’s axis seems to wobble back and forth by 7 degrees over a year, so that that we alternatively get a better view of the North pole [in September] and of the South pole [in March]. That allows us to actually deducing the distribution of the field over the polar cap as I show in this famous paper: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Hinode is subject to the same variation which explains [should you care to read their paper] why they report observations from March and September.

davidmhoffer says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:09 pmOK seriously, what is the reason for the earth’s orbit becoming more circular?
Perturbations by the planets, mostly Jupiter [yes, the planets are driving our climate].

Peter S says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:11 pmIs this change a relatively recent thing, (a few thousands of years), or is it part of a long term gradual change in cycle from elliptical to circular?
This takes place on time scales of 50,000 years and longer.

A paper with more:
“Science 23 August 2002:
Vol. 297 no. 5585 pp. 1287-1288
An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?
A. Berger, M. F. Loutre
“Today’s comparatively warm climate has been the exception more than the rule during the last 500,000 years or more. If recent warm periods (or interglacials) are a guide, then we may soon slip into another glacial period. But Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”

Mike Smith says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:46 pmSo what impact have past solar reversals had on earth’s climate?
None, huge, lost in all of the other noise and pseudo-randomness?
What, if anything, should we expect to see?
The reversals themselves don’t do anything. Any other solar influence seems lost on the noise.

Leif, thank you as always for your instruction on this site! Articles like these bring me back 40 years, to when I studied astronomy at the University of Illinois under Dr. Jim Kaler. Amazingly, he’s in excellent health and we still communicate! http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/

How does all the fluctuation in solar magnetic field relate to Ap? If the source is weakening (is it?), then Ap will drop further? And then what does that do to GCR flux -> clouds -> weather patterns? Seems to me the solar wind/magnetic field perturbations of weather via GCRs is a reasonable if the signal is amplified. Obviously, TSI variation is weak, so that can’t be a major causal factor, except perhaps for UV influences on the upper atmosphere.

My problem is a lot of us here have been reading about various concepts here at WUWT regarding solar weather and climate for years. There is a significant risk many of us we might think we actually know something. Or, we might listen to someone who thinks they know something and we believe them.

I’m not necessarily believing any one particular idea at this point. I am trying to fit pieces together to see if they naturally handle observables well. And of course it is nice if there is further experimental evidence to back up the hypotheses. I’m am satisfied Siegenthaler and others have shown conclusively CO2 follows temperature change, so that was enough to toss the causal role in AGW. Where I have a very large gap is in the cause of ocean thermal cycles. Does it at all have to do with the thermohaline current? Are they tied together? Is PDO for example really just a ~1000m max phenomenon, or does something act deeper as a regulator?

Years ago I wrote here I didn’t believe the Sun was sufficient to produce big influences on GCRs, but galactic processes might produce much higher fluxes, and these might have profound influences along the lines of Svensmark to dramatically alter climate. It was great to see the paper on the Earth’s trajectory through the galaxy and how climate changes may have been influenced by changes in our surroundings.

I don’t get to do experiments, but I do get to use my BS detector, and it is fun to put together the available ideas. It’s like being a kid, looking at map of the Earth and seeing how Africa and South America fit together. Then you find out about plate tectonics. That’s what I find very fun about being here. We get exposed to new concepts, and it’s like being an undergrad again. Without the exams. Or the beer. But Willis gets the Kava, and we get great stories and interesting analysis.

We don’t often hear it enough from family how much we appreciate each other. Well, despite our arguments and ego tantrums, this is an awesome family. Thanks people.

Hoser says:
August 5, 2013 at 11:21 pmHow does all the fluctuation in solar magnetic field relate to Ap? If the source is weakening (is it?), then Ap will drop further?
Yes, Ap will follow the cycle down. But even when the sunspot number has dropped to zero, there is still a non-zero level of geomagnetic activity.

No, that’s an incorrect statement. That plot, as well as those made by Leif and WSO, all use the same data source. While the filtered polar field data provides us with a good historical representation of the development of the polar fields, it is important to remember that due to how the filtered values are calculated, there is significant uncertainty for the last year or so of data. The uncertainty is highest for the most recent values. We will still have to wait a few months to know when the southern polar field flipped. Judging from current SDO magnetograms there is not much difference between the number and size of positive and negative polarity patches near the south pole.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm
OK seriously, what is the reason for the earth’s orbit becoming more circular?
Perturbations by the planets, mostly Jupiter [yes, the planets are driving our climate].

According to astrophysicist Ian Wilson, planetary perturbations may be affecting shorter term Earth Orientation Parameters too. Such as the Chandler Wobble and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, which appears to be linked to the Arctic Oscillation and interannual weather patterns.http://wp.me/pi4G5-3Ap

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm
vukcevic says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:48 pm
(It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself.)
meaning of the above: ‘We Have No Clue’ – WHNC

Perhaps you could easy on the nonsense and embarrass yourself a bit less.
………………
Not knowing or being wrong I’m carefree to admit, and never get embarrassed by it. Suppressing progress would be a different matter.

I am reminded (& I repeat) of the BBC Horizon science programme of a few years ago, when they did a show on the Sun, the script writers had the poor hapless jobbing actor doing the narration say, towards the end of course, “No one can explain EXACTLY how the Sun affects the Earth’s climate, but whatever it is, it’s already been overtaken by manmade global warming!” Cut from Infrared close-up view of Sun to a carving iceberg for dramatic effect!!!! Such a shame great programmes/shows fall by the wayside to appease their paymasters. Yet the ultimate insult is that it is the taxpayers who finally foot the bill!!!! I don’t mind being screwed over for a percentage because I was a fool, it’s when I know I am unavoidably being screwed over that I object to it most!!!!

Utterly absurd. This alludes that the vanishing polar bear habitat myth has an equivalent in the sun magnetic reversal.
Of course, again we see Leif sheepishly pretend this sentence and the objections to it raised in the comments don’t exist.

1:59 the screen slow zooms out of an picture diagram of the solar system. There is a label ‘bow shock’.

“new data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), however, now indicate that the sun does not have a bow shock May 2012

How come in the 58 comments prior to this one no one seems to have noticed NASA slip this now discredited theory in? NASA carry a big bagful of old discredited space myths around. They still expound them in their public releases. If you are ready to spot the Al Gore polar bear one in this vid, then you should be able to spot the others.

Dr Svalgaard, whilst many of the people frequenting this site are well-credentialed scientists, others like me are lay people who come here to learn things. It is to your great credit that you, as a leading active researcher in this field, are prepared to come here and answer so many questions. Thank you.

Dr. Svalgaard, I read the link you provided at 6:55 and I noticed on the last page you used the expression “working hypothesis.” Maybe if our “friends” Mann, Gore, et al used that expression instead of settled science when talking about AGW, they might have more people willing to listen.

Tim says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:16 amWould that not suggest the resolution of the proxies is such that 100 year cycles are invisible rather than not there?
The resolution is good enough [from 1 to about 20 years] to show a 100 year cycle if there were one.

wayne Job says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:27 amwondering if this is directly connected with the solar field?
No, the Earth’s field is generated in the core 3000 km down and is 100,000 times stronger than the solar field impacting the Earth.

Doubt it.
The slow bow shock model is a definitive case of a desperate scramble to save a dead theory.

The conflict between pride & dogma vs evidence spills out into the article you linked.

“The researchers base their expectation of finding a bow shock on a new magneto-hydrodynamic simulation that confirmed a theoretically expected slow bow shock (SBS) ahead of the heliosphere.”

“Confirmed” ?
Someone hypothesises something so they get a computer to simulate it. That’s confirmation is it?

The article conveniently fails to mention that SBS theory is an postdictive adjustment to the 2012 IBEX results.

And I didn’t miss that your comment was ambiguous. I could mean 1 of 2 things
a) : There might be a slow bow shock
b) : There is a bow shock, and that perhaps why others didn’t point it out in the comments.

Your bias for the bow shock theory is telling.

The bow shock theory has gone the way of dark matter and dirty snowball comets.. i.e. Completely falsified. But just as with any other falsified theories, there will be acolytes that continue to believe it and to expound it as long as they live.

One decent aspect of the article…” This challenges some recent models that argued no bow shock at all would be found. “
These ‘recent models’ are actually over 10 years old and are from electric universe adherents such as Thornhill and Scott.

So far, no bow shock found.
Eventually after dozens of fails the bow shock theory will go the way of the higgs boson prediction :- i.e. it’ll be reduced to – some change in conditions is predicted, in some circumstances . So when inevitably that tautology is evidenced by some probe, the headline will be ” bowshock theory proved right ! ”

Same pattern of dealing with falsified theories happens everywhere in ‘establishment science’.
xD

meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:07 amSomeone hypothesises something so they get a computer to simulate it. That’s confirmation is it?
The IBEX result was based on models:
“analytical calculations and modeling and simulations to determine the conditions necessary for creating a bow shock. Two independent global models — one from a group in Huntsville, Ala., and another from Moscow — correlated with the analytical findings.”

These ‘recent models’ are actually over 10 years old and are from electric universe adherents such as Thornhill and Scott.
That alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.

Patrick says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:20 am“That [EU] alone makes the whole thing dubious, to say the least.”
Apart from the fact that the IBEX models are not based on EU theory [which has never predicted anything]
The paper on the bow shock [Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 2923–2928, 28 June 2013] states:
“Current estimates of plasma parameters in the local interstellar medium indicate that the speed of the interstellar wind, i.e., the relative speed of the local interstellar cloud with respect to the Sun, is most likely less than both the fast magnetosonic speed (subfast) and the Alfvén speed (sub-Alfvénic) but greater than the slow magnetosonic speed (superslow). In this peculiar parameter regime, MHD theory postulates a slow magnetosonic shock ahead of the heliosphere, provided that the angle between the interstellar magnetic field and the interstellar plasma flow velocity is quite small (e.g., 15° to 30°). In this likely scenario, our multifluid MHD model of the heliospheric interface self-consistently produces a spatially confined quasi-parallel slow bow shock. Voyager 1 is heading toward the slow bow shock, while Voyager 2 is not, which means that the two spacecraft are expected to encounter different interstellar plasma populations beyond the heliopause. The slow bow shock also affects the density and spatial extent of the neutral hydrogen wall.”

Since we have not penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusion’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.

Apart from the fact that the IBEX models are not based on EU theory [which has never predicted anything]
The paper on the bow shock [Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 2923–2928, 28 June 2013] states:
“Current estimates of plasma parameters in the local interstellar medium indicate that the speed of the interstellar wind, i.e., the relative speed of the local interstellar cloud with respect to the Sun, is most likely less than both the fast magnetosonic speed (subfast) and the Alfvén speed (sub-Alfvénic) but greater than the slow magnetosonic speed (superslow). In this peculiar parameter regime, MHD theory postulates a slow magnetosonic shock ahead of the heliosphere, provided that the angle between the interstellar magnetic field and the interstellar plasma flow velocity is quite small (e.g., 15° to 30°). In this likely scenario, our multifluid MHD model of the heliospheric interface self-consistently produces a spatially confined quasi-parallel slow bow shock. Voyager 1 is heading toward the slow bow shock, while Voyager 2 is not, which means that the two spacecraft are expected to encounter different interstellar plasma populations beyond the heliopause. The slow bow shock also affects the density and spatial extent of the neutral hydrogen wall.”

Since we have not yet penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusions’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.

While the filtered polar field data provides us with a good historical representation of the development of the polar fields, it is important to remember that due to how the filtered values are calculated, there is significant uncertainty for the last year or so of data.

Very true. But the 20nHz filter mainly compensates for projection effect rather than noise. It’s therefore possible to re-interpolate recent filtered values (by looking at unfiltered values taken nearest the 8th of June and 10th of December when there’s no projection effect imbalance) to get a better provisional impression of what is currently happening.

As an amateur science observer(I love wuwt) I did not know the suns magnetic fields flipped, and regularly. At first I though it was a important big deal but every solar cycle means it is not a surprise. Still, fascinating!

ralfellis says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:41 amSo when the Earth’s magnetic field flips, will it do so in the same fashion? i.e. – in the same short time period, with complete reversal happening in just a year or so?
No, the Earth takes thousands of years to ‘flip’

And why should the Earth’s magnetic cycle be so much longer than the Sun’s?
Completely different conditions.

My ignorance of solar matters is more than sufficient for me to not comment on solar issues. I am writing in hope of avoiding a side-track which the two of you seem to be entering.

Leif says:

Since we have not penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusion’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’.”

And Patrick replies

Simulations and models. Shaky?

Lief’s comment is honest and true.
Indeed, it is a simple statement of a scientific principle.

Empirical data will reveal the accuracy and predictive ability of the models. Until then, the models ARE a statement of the understandings from which the modelers constructed the model(s). This is true of every scientific model about anything.

If the model makes a prediction (in this case about effects of postulated ‘bow shock’) then that prediction supports the understanding if the prediction comes true.
Alternatively,
If the model makes a prediction (in this case about effects of postulated ‘bow shock’) then that prediction refutes the understanding if the prediction fails to come true.

The failure of the prediction to ‘come true’ shows the model is “shaky” because the understanding is incorrect (in some way or to some degree).

Until the prediction is observed to be correct or (in some way) incorrect then the model is a statement of the existing understanding. And that understanding is provided with merit by the fact that it can be tested because the prediction(s) of the model can be compared to subsequently obtained empirical data.

However, Patrick is right to have some scepticism. The use of models in place of empirical data is a negation of real science. This negation of science has been seen, for example, in the refusal of climatologists to accept that the predictive failures of climate models indicate error the climatolosts’ understanding of climate.

I see nothing in what Lief has said which suggests he would be party to such a negation of science.

One can only hope that Earth’s response to tugs and pulls from other planetary bodies WILL prolong our current shangri la. I love Earth’s intrinsic variable nature. It is such an alive planet I find infinitely fascinating and wonderfully powerful.

As for the Sun, I have said it before and will say it again. Exchange any diamond’s size and brilliance on my finger for a tiny piece of the Sun. It is far more dazzling to my eyes than a dead rock.

Not sure why this heated debat about the Bow Shock started, but it is interesting. Is it possible that the boundry conditions can change. Possible the galactic cloud’s density changes as we move through it, or the angle or speed of the galactic cloud (with respect to our solar system). If this is possible, a single probe may or may not encounter the ‘usual’ condition.

” Since we have not yet penetrated to the bow shock, all ‘conclusions’ pro et con are based on simulations, which is fine as the models encapsulate our knowledge. If that is shaky, so are our ‘findings’. ”

Typical. Leif is not being honest about evidence in relation to solar wind bow shock theory. He is pretending no results of note came from voyager 1 in 2010.

In 2010 Voyager 1 was measuring the solar wind on the edge of the solar system. Bow shock theory predicted that at some distance out from the sun the solar wind would yield to an interstellar wind and that some evidence for physics analogous to well understood fluid bow shocks would be measured.
Such yielding was predicted to be a change of direction in the wind.

Instead the solar wind came to a dead halt. No bow shock theory at the time predicted or explained it. Therefore all theory for such models were falsified.

This was all widely publicized at the time“All [ bowshock ] theoretical models have been found wanting.” – Stamatios Krimigis, a space scientist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA principal investigator in charge of the Voyager spacecraft’s Low-Energy Charged Particle instrument,

Of course NASA is more than 1 person, so while I can point to many articles and quote NASA scientists who now believe the heliopause is the region discovered in by 2010 voyager 1 and that bowshock theory is discredited, so Lief can point to some stubborn minded conservative NASA work that has bashed the old models to fit in with new results.

No bow shock at the edge of the solar system has ever been evidenced,
Bow shock models failed to predict the stagnation of the solar wind.
And I expect the new slow bow shock model will be falsified if and when voyager measures a new region of conditions further out the solar system.

Here’s a question : Since the solar wind was measured to effectively cease in the region of voyager 1 in 2010, how is there going to be any bow shock at all? The best I can guess is that the orders of magnitude slower wind measured by V1 is going to be deflected laterally by an orders of magnitude ( than previously modelled ) slower stellar wind. Not much of a bow ‘shock’ then is it?
Sounds daft to me.

Here’s a question : Since the solar wind was measured to effectively cease in the region of voyager 1 in 2010, how is there going to be any bow shock at all?
Because the bow shock is not due to the solar wind ceasing, but to the solar system moving against the interstellar medium at 29 km/s.

Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:37 amSpeaking of the Sun … OT ..yes .. but … the Neutron Monitor at NWU has been updated.http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735
hmmm, when I embed that link in my html file the browser cannot find the plot. Any clues as to why not, or an alternate URL?

vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:03 amhttp://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/42735
it is a low res (if you increase size it gets soft), then link it to the pdf as…
Thanks, but it always works when used alone, the problem is to embed it in an html file not a pdf.

hmmm, when I embed that link in my html file the browser cannot find the plot. Any clues as to why not, or an alternate URL?

Hey Leif … can’t say. I just noticed on the page that the NWU NM plot stopped in 2011 .. so I went searching to see if I could find it. Found this page:http://www.nwu.ac.za/neutron-monitor-data
On that page is an updated picture of the graph. There are two links on the page … one for data, and a pdf [the one I originally linked]. Ya might want to try this latest link and see if there is something on it that you can link to automatically update your presentation. :-)

…. and since I’ve got your attention …. [ha!] …. tell me about the butterfly picture on the sun spot area. I know people have been comparing this cycle to 1905, but the butterfly picture is looking more like it will be more like the 1880 butterfly! What does this mean?? I know TSI is pretty much stable, but is the butterfly some indicator of total magnetic strength?? … or what?

The file http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735 is in the .pdf format so you may not be able to imbed graphic directly.
I suggested to imbed the smaller graphic, make graphic itself the link to the above .pdf graph as:
+a href=http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735+
+img src=http://www.nwu.ac.za/webfm_send/62460+
replace + sign by as appropriate since WUWT doesn’t accept above in the correct format

Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:14 amHey Leif .. .try plugging in this ….
Thanks everybody. I have to do it as a two step process. You have to click to see the larger image. Arghhh.

Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:20 ambut is the butterfly some indicator of total magnetic strength?? … or what?
The butterfly diagram shows the latitude where the spots are, color coded as to how many there are.

And I expect the new slow bow shock model will be falsified if and when voyager measures a new region of conditions further out the solar system.
So, your ‘expectation’ is now valid science?

Well true science is DIY, but since I can’t make my own space probe I’ll just have to rely on voyager 1 results. Same for most people. Apart from that, yes it’s science. But since any unbiased scientist should know this I wonder if you alluding to asserting that predicting a bow shock is science, but predicting no bow shock isn’t science.

Note that McComas is a co-author of the slow bow shock paper I cited…… the person you quote
If a spot of irony is half of your rebuttal to my comment then its a pretty weak rebuttal.

It is time for you to take your ball and go home rather than try to play with the big boys.
It’s already evident to us, but if I were you I wouldn’t parade your believe that science can only be done by ‘big boys’ – i.e. those who occupy the highest ivory towers in academia. Science is done by everyone. When you’ve got a select few telling everyone else how things are, then that’s religion.

Here’s a question : Since the solar wind was measured to effectively cease in the region of voyager 1 in 2010, how is there going to be any bow shock at all?
Because the bow shock is not due to the solar wind ceasing, but to the solar system moving against the interstellar medium at 29 km/s.

The only sense I can make of that is that the 29km/s interstellar wind is predicted to be hitting the ceased solar wind. I can’t see any sensible reason why you’ve used the term ‘solar system’ instead of ceased solar wind. It’s not as if the solar system out at the radius of voyager 1 is much more than ceased solar wind particles. Again you seem to be alluding the absurd, as if the solar system has an intrinsic rigid solid structure against which the interstellar wind can collide with.
And anyway it doesn’t explain the cessation of the solar wind.

Leif,
Thanks for correcting my (mis)understanding of yet another aspect of this universe, the solar magnetics!

But a followup thought/question:

I take it:
1) magnetic flips don’t coincide with a substantial total solar magnetic field presence,so
2) unlike the Earth, the “poles” of the Sun are a separate phenonena to the general magnetic fields of the Sun. From other stuff, then,
3) a descent into a normal, low sunspot “Quiet Sun” period does NOT mean the magnetic character of the Sun necessarily changes, so
4) the magnetic field is NOT strictly related to whatever causes sunspots,
4) the Dalton and Maunder periods in which sunspots were rare or absent was a time in which the magnetic field was ALSO low.

I take it, then, that the magnetic field of the sun is a multi-component phenomena, and it is possible that the magnetic poles of the sun – their presence or absence – may be a collective phenomena. Perhaps an entrainment of smaller portions that happens with either positive reinforcement processes or a simple time varying phase event of various processes with their own cycles.

I’m trying to get my head around how no sunspots this month is not significant, but no sunspots during the Dalton/Maunder, upcoming Cycle 25 IS signficant wrt magnetic field strength. Also how a solar magnetic field can be substantially unchanged while poles come and go IF processes in the Sun are essentially unitary, i.e. one large process spinning off a multitude of secondary events, rather than a multitude of semi-independent events that combine to give the illusion of a “global” process.

The solar magnetic reversal is probably going to occur later rather then sooner and is meaningless when it comes to the climate.

In addition the mainstream scientific commmunity is still trying to convey to the public that the sun is acting normal when the reality is ,it is in a prolonged solar minimum period. The second half of solar cycle 24 maximum is not going to be anything like a maximum in all probability. .

I put very little faith in what the mainstream has to say when it comes to solar predictions.

As recently as year 2007 many were saying solar cycle 24 would be one of the most active solar cycles ever ,instead it has been one of the weakest ever ,which was forecasted way in advance by those who subscribe to the angular solar momentum theory.

Clyde says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:27 amNot to dumb down the comments, but would a person have to get a new compass on the sun when this flip occurs? In other words would north now be south?
The compass would, indeed point to other way [on the Sun, not the Earth].

meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:30 amIf a spot of irony is half of your rebuttal to my comment then its a pretty weak rebuttal.
No rebuttal as there was not much substance to rebut. Look at it as [free] education. Let me summarize: A year ago, it was found that the solar wind moved a tad slower than thought. Using the models then available McCormack and colleagues computed by simulation that the models predicted no bow shock. A year later, using improved models, the same authors found that a bow shock was likely to form.

Again you seem to be alluding the absurd, as if the solar system has an intrinsic rigid solid structure against which the interstellar wind can collide with.
It does, just like the Earth’s magnetic field is an obstacle for the solar wind to collide with.

And anyway it doesn’t explain the cessation of the solar wind.
When there is a pressure balance between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, the solar wind stops.

Doug Proctor says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:36 am1) magnetic flips don’t coincide with a substantial total solar magnetic field presence,so
2) unlike the Earth, the “poles” of the Sun are a separate phenonena to the general magnetic fields of the Sun. From other stuff, then,
3) a descent into a normal, low sunspot “Quiet Sun” period does NOT mean the magnetic character of the Sun necessarily changes, so
4) the magnetic field is NOT strictly related to whatever causes sunspots,
4) the Dalton and Maunder periods in which sunspots were rare or absent was a time in which the magnetic field was ALSO low.
No, that chain is incorrect.
It is rather that the poles are the ‘general magnetic field’ which eventually controls the solar cycle. The magnetic field at the poles is the stuff of which sunspot are formed inside the sun. The magnetic field during the Maunder Minimum was likely not very low as there was a strong solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays [caused by the magnetic field].

I’m trying to get my head around …
The polar fields are dragged into the Sun by circulation of material. At depth the magnetic field is amplified by induction. The resulting stronger fields float to the surface and there assemble into sunspots. Sunspots decay and the magnetic debris is carried to the poles and the process repeats. So there is a mixture of global and of small-scale processes.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:41 amI put very little faith in what the mainstream has to say when it comes to solar predictions.
Because you do not know what the science has to say about that, or how cycle 24 was correctly predicted by mainstream science.

Solar flux today 104 in the middle of the so called maximum.
The past month the solar flux has been around 120, as predicted.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:05 pmThe Layman sunspot count is the ONLY count that gives one a proper perspective on the relative strength of solar cycles.
The Layman sunspot count is junk, uncalibrated, and misconstructed

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:15 pmIf one looks at the graphs one can see a major difference with solar north/south polar field changes in this cycle as opposed to earlier cycles.
Apart from being small, there is no difference.

Solar cycle 24 is nothing like the typical solar cycles of the last century
It is very similar to the low cycles at the beginning of that century.

Doug Proctor says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:36 amI take it:
4) the magnetic field is NOT strictly related to whatever causes sunspots,

Huhhhhhhhhhh!
Now you really got yourself in a sticky situation.
If Dr. S agrees with that I’ eat my hat.
Strict relation 0.7 Rmax is the basis of his solar hypothesis, and admittedly correct prediction of SC24max

WUWT solar reference page clealry shows on the solar flux graph that the smooth average for the solar flux at this stage of sola rcycle 24 was forecasted to be slightly above the 140 level. It can not be any clearer.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:28 pmSolar cycle 24 is nothing like the weak solar cycles early this century it is much more like solar cycle 5 of the Dalton Minimum.
Apart from the fact that the sunspot data we have for cycle 5 is very uncertain so no meaningful comparison can be made; which of these curves do you wish to compare with http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:37 pmWUWT solar reference page clealry shows on the solar flux graph that the smooth average for the solar flux at this stage of solar cycle 24 was forecasted to be slightly above the 140 level. It can not be any clearer.
That forecast was a political compromise [not science] and is not correct. [too high]. I have already given you my forecast: Slide 37 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf and the reasons for it.

Re: “It is time for you to take your ball and go home rather than try to play with the big boys.”
Question for WUWT: Where was your moderator with “SNIP”? Why wouldn’t you want to save Dr.S from making such a statement! It adds nothing to Science, and only reflects on his character. If the person was wrong, why isn’t it enough just to say so. Why denigrate him in the process?
Unfortunately, I have observed this type of remark too many times in the past.

To my knowledge the longest interglacial periods (super-interglacials) during this ice age last little more than 30,000 years. I find it hard to believe that our current interglacial will last anywhere near 50,000 years, let alone the 30,000 years in total seen during the few super-interglacials.

If I remember correctly these super-interglacials exhibited sea levels of 25+ m higher than today, evidence that the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets were diminished. Other proxy data supports this. Today our climate is slightly cooler and sea level is slightly lower than during the optimums of the previous four interglacials. Arctic sea-ice has yet to diminish to the levels suggested from the data of the previous interglacials as well. So, to me the data suggests that our current climate is no different than any normal interglacial but change is the only thing that’s consistent so it’s not impossible that this interglacial will be substantially longer than all the previous ones.

Sam Glasser says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:43 pmIf the person was wrong, why isn’t it enough just to say so. Why denigrate him in the process?
You may have overlooked this denigration:
meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 8:32 am
“Typical. Leif is not being honest about evidence in relation to solar wind bow shock ”

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Solar cycle 24 is nothing like the weak solar cycles early this century it is much more like solar cycle 5 of the Dalton Minimum.
Apart from the fact that the sunspot data we have for cycle 5 is very uncertain so no meaningful comparison can be made; which of these curves do you wish to compare with http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png

How about cosmogenic isotope data? Do you find this data too unreliable?

Robert W Turner says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:02 pmI find it hard to believe that our current interglacial will last anywhere near 50,000 years, let alone the 30,000 years in
The proper way to deal with this is to show the mistake or weakness in Berger & Loutre’s paper rather than basing your belief on incredulity.

Robert W Turner says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:08 pmHow about cosmogenic isotope data? Do you find this data too unreliable?
Judge for yourself: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
The cosmic ray data is interpolated from [if memory serves] 5-yr samples. And it is hard to calibrate that into sunspot numbers to compare with.

Well … we can hope that we all learn a lot.
I’m holding my breath to see if temperature actually goes down as Archibald has predicted. Granted, as Leif has said in the past, …. it doesn’t prove the sun is controlling climate .. but it’ll dang sure show that CO2 is not controlling climate, and put an end to all this hub bub about boiling planet, dying polar bears and flooded coast.
And Hey .. maybe there is a yet to be discovered mechanism of how the sun controls atmospheric circulation and clouds, such that it does in some way influence the amount of SW that reaches the surface, which is a completely separate issue from TSI.

Robert W Turner says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm
I find it hard to believe that our current interglacial will last anywhere near 50,000 years, let alone the 30,000 years in
The proper way to deal with this is to show the mistake or weakness in Berger & Loutre’s paper rather than basing your belief on incredulity.

Well I based this on thinking that an interglacial of that length had never occurred before but upon further research I found that one interglacial, MS 11, did last that long.

TLMango says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:26 pmHow does this HCS relate to space-time? Do the planets pass through the sheet or does the sheet contour with space-time? No pun intended.
Nothing that fancy. The HCS is just a thin sheet of current caused by charges drifting in the magnetic field. The density is higher there than away from the current. So it is a real physical thing. The HCS is tied to the Sun so as the Sun rotates the current sheet will rotate with it and will sweep over the planets. It will sweep over the much slower moving Earth some 13 to 14 times in a year.

I can’t help but notice that it steadily increases and remains pretty dang strong after 1960, even cycle 20 is pretty dang strong compared to earlier cycles. Has anyone ever quantified this effect in a line graph, and seen how it correlates to climate?? [yeah .. still searching :-) ]

I’m wondering how far back does knowledge of the various sun cycles, magnetic, sun spot, flux etc. go. Is it mostly derived from modern observations (e.g. since the invention of the telescope and electronics). Is there any data from further back in the Holocene, from the 100k glaciation cycle, from the 40k glaciation cycle, from before the glaciations etc? How do we know these sun cycles endure. How do we know they weren’t radically different in the distant past or even just the pre-historic past? If we’re limited to information from our little part of the Holocene how do we know sun cycles don’t play a much larger role in earth’s climate?

Dr. Deanster says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:35 pmI can’t help but notice that it steadily increases and remains pretty dang strong after 1960, even cycle 20 is pretty dang strong compared to earlier cycles. Has anyone ever quantified this effect in a line graph

and seen how it correlates to climate?? [yeah .. still searching :-) ]
It doesn’t.

John G. says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:35 pmI’m wondering how far back does knowledge of the various sun cycles, magnetic, sun spot, flux etc. go. Is it mostly derived from modern observations (e.g. since the invention of the telescope and electronics). Is there any data from further back in the Holocene, from the 100k glaciation cycle
We have cosmic ray procies going back about 10,000 years. Before that, the variations due to glaciations [due to planetary perturbations of our orbit] are so huge that any solar signal [which we don’t have as yet] would be completely lost in the noise.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:55 pmvukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm
The HCS is tied to the Sun so as the Sun rotates the current sheet will rotate with it and will sweep over the planets”
I think the above is open to misinterpretation, you might wish to clarify.
What is there to misinterpret? My statement is precise, true, and simple. Here is an even nicer animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2434rAbImf0

vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm“The HCS is tied to the Sun so as the Sun rotates the current sheet will rotate with it and will sweep over the planets”
I think the above is open to misinterpretation
How do you misinterpret it?

Let’s assume that an ‘observing imaginary object’ is ejected from the sun approximately at 13o’clock position, coinciding with line denoted 24 in red (see links above) sitting on the expanding dark blue blob.
‘observing imaginary object’ always travels radially from the sun, not rotating with it.
Just sayin’, but I am sure you’ll come up with something to show that ain’t so. .

vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm‘observing imaginary object’ always travels radially from the sun, not rotating with it.
The individual solar wind particles always travel radially away from the Sun but the HCS is a structure and that structure rotates with the Sun as shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2434rAbImf0
The situation is like a wave rolling over the ocean. The structure moves forward, the water molecules [or a boat in the water] does not. A tsunami is not a wave, it is a actually a ‘bore’ and in that the water actually moves forward, making tsunamis so powerfully dangerous. You can liken a CME to a tsunami.

vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:52 pmThere you are, now everyone can see why ‘things’ that travel in a strait line appear to rotate.
No, that is a misinterpretation. The ‘things’ don’t rotate, the structure [the HCS] does. And it does not ‘appear’ to rotate, it actually does rotate.

James At 48 says:
August 6, 2013 at 2:54 pmSo we have probably hit the max for the current cycle.
In a sense, yes, but weak cycles do not have a sharp, well-defined maximum, so we’ll be in a ‘maximum state’ for several years.

Leif,
My passion has mostly been the connection between solar inertial motion and axial precession.
Has the connection between HCS and the lunar cycle been exhausted. (since this wave overtakes the earth 13 to 14 times a year)

Now then, current sheet is made of ‘things’ (electrons and protons with the associated magnetic field), these are individual parts of the current sheet, and all travel in a strait lines away from the source, or to put it another way, any individual section of the structure moves out radially, but the structure rotates.
Now it is all clear to everyone, no room for misinterpretation. Thanks.

TLMango says:
August 6, 2013 at 3:14 pmHas the connection between HCS and the lunar cycle been exhausted. (since this wave overtakes the earth 13 to 14 times a year)
The HCS stretches throughout the entire solar system and can be computed from the observed magnetic field on the Sun, so it is very doubtful [impossible] that our tiny moon has any influence on the HCS.

TLMango says:
August 6, 2013 at 3:51 pmI’m sorry. I meant to say, is the possibility of HCS influencing lunar cycle been looked at exhaustively. I didn’t suggest our tiny moon was influencing HCS.
We measure constantly the distance to the Moon with millimeter accuracy and the variations are accounted for so there does not seem to be any extraneous influence. I wouldn’t expect any because the density of particles carrying the current is so incredible low [10 particles per cc].

Leif Svalgaard quoted and responded:
“Now it is all clear to everyone, no room for misinterpretation.
It is good to see that you have no further misinterpretations.”

Is that a peace agreement or an armistice? ;-)

I ask because I’m still struck (stuck?) by the notion of electrons and protons having their vectors altered by magnetic fields. So since the Sun’s magnetic field rotates with it, will the charged particles be deflected from a radial path?

PJF says:
August 6, 2013 at 4:42 pmIs that a peace agreement or an armistice?
Vuk is apt to misinterpret things, so now and then he must be brought back onto the straight and narrow road.

So since the Sun’s magnetic field rotates with it, will the charged particles be deflected from a radial path?
No [well a tiny, tiny bit which is of no consequence]. Look at slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf From the Sun at the lower right you’ll see an arrow stretching radially away from the Sun. Look at the particle labeled ‘6’. It was ejected from the Sun 5 days ago. Yesterday it was at point 5, day before that at 4, day before that at 3, then at 2 and at 1. The point on the Sun that was in position 1 five days ago has in the meantime rotated to the point on the Sun marked 6. So when a particle is at point 6 on the arrow, the point on the Sun where it came from has rotated to point 6 on the edge of the Sun. Since the magnetic field is ‘frozen’ into the plasma [this means that the field and the plasma move together], the magnetic field line that pervades point 6 on the arrow came from point 6 on the Sun. At days 2, 3, 4, etc, point 6 were on the arrows drawn to the left [originating from points 1, 2, 3, etc on the Sun. You can see that all the points marked 6 lie on a spiral although the movements are always straight away from the Sun. Think of the drops from a rotating lawn sprinkler, they do the same.

Soon, the doomsayers will come with all sorts of new theories on how this will end the world somehow. Yup, it is an 11 year cycle, but I have little faith in people and I’m sure most of these kinds of fools will overlook that fact.

Thanks for your reply, Dr S. In the meantime I’d read the Wikipedia page for the heliospheric current sheet, and your explanation helped me understand their explanation (of the radial motion). I can see how any charged particles won’t be deflected by the part of the magnetic field they carry with them (are frozen with), but presumably faster moving particles (from CMEs, etc) will encounter the twisted spiral and be deflected from a radial path. Certainly something is deflecting the outbursts seen in this LASCO animation:

Looking inward rather than outward, does the solar core have any effect on the magnetic field and other outer layer action (other than providing the energy for it)? In other words, is there any “information” coming from the core that causes any changes? And does the magnetic field alter activity in the core?

Thanks again for your output. You must feel quite a bow shock against the density out here.
rgds
Peter

[i]Look at it as [free] education. [/i]
I don’t. I look at it some acolytes of the bow shock theory scrambling to bash their theory to fit the latest fact. It’s pretty standard procedure that new space data doesn’t fit theory.

Let me summarize: A year ago, it was found that the solar wind moved a tad slower than thought.
That’s the most obtuse and dismissive interpretation of the v1 data I’ve heard. It doesn’t acknowledge the unexpected sudden drop to nera zero of >0.5MeV solar wind particles.
Why would a leader of the v1 team say ” “All theoretical models have been found wanting.” if theory and data where out by only a “tad” ?

Using the models then available McCormack and colleagues computed by simulation that the models predicted no bow shock. A year later, using improved models, the same authors found that a bow shock was likely to form.
That’s leif speak for computer modeller bashing there models post hoc to fit new data and predict what they want to be predicted.

It does, just like the Earth’s magnetic field is an obstacle for the solar wind to collide with.
Well say solar system’s magnetic field , rather than solar system.

And anyway it doesn’t explain the cessation of the solar wind.
When there is a pressure balance between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, the solar wind stops.
If its got such a simple rational then why wasn’t it predicted? Why were ” All theoretical models … been found wanting ” ?

Isn’t the solar wind rather sparse out at 230AU? How come nearly all solar wind particles lose all their velocity in the same small region of the outer solar system. If the solar wind was up against an interstellar wind, then the disruption of particle trajectories by collision should be a smoothly increasing incidence with distance.

PJF says:
August 6, 2013 at 6:46 pmLooking inward rather than outward, does the solar core have any effect on the magnetic field and other outer layer action (other than providing the energy for it)? In other words, is there any “information” coming from the core that causes any changes? And does the magnetic field alter activity in the core?
Now and then the idea of a ‘relic’ magnetic field billions of years old residing in the core crops up. This idea is not generally accepted and we don’t know of any observable effect that can be ascribed to that relic field.
The sunspots do not interfere with the core.

meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:00 pmThat’s leif speak for computer modeller bashing there models post hoc to fit new data and predict what they want to be predicted.
That is McCormack acknowledging that he was wrong a year ago when he said there was no bow shock.

If its got such a simple rational then why wasn’t it predicted? Why were ” All theoretical models … been found wanting ” ?
It was predicted 50 years ago.

If the solar wind was up against an interstellar wind, then the disruption of particle trajectories by collision should be a smoothly increasing incidence with distance.
The particles never collide out there. The magnetic field is what makes the solar system stiff.
Your education continues.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:15 pmThat is McCormack acknowledging that he was wrong a year ago when he said there was no bow shock.
I should spell his name correctly: McComas
To remind you of his paper:
“Current estimates of plasma parameters in the local interstellar medium indicate that the speed of the interstellar wind, i.e., the relative speed of the local interstellar cloud with respect to the Sun, is most likely less than both the fast magnetosonic speed (subfast) and the Alfvén speed (sub-Alfvénic) but greater than the slow magnetosonic speed (superslow). In this peculiar parameter regime, MHD theory postulates a slow magnetosonic shock ahead of the heliosphere, provided that the angle between the interstellar magnetic field and the interstellar plasma flow velocity is quite small (e.g., 15° to 30°). In this likely scenario, our multifluid MHD model of the heliospheric interface self-consistently produces a spatially confined quasi-parallel slow bow shock. Voyager 1 is heading toward the slow bow shock, while Voyager 2 is not, which means that the two spacecraft are expected to encounter different interstellar plasma populations beyond the heliopause. The slow bow shock also affects the density and spatial extent of the neutral hydrogen wall.”
This is now. What you are stuck on was then.

meemoe_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:00 pmThat’s leif speak for computer modeller bashing there models post hoc to fit new data and predict what they want to be predicted.
You may take this to heart: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2013-07-voyager-solar.pdf
“In space, a bow shock is similar to the shockwave formed ahead of the wing of a plane or the bow of a moving ship. They are often formed when a solar wind encounters a planet’s magnetic field. Earth has a thin bow shock formed approximately 90,000 km ahead of the planet. Just as planets move throughout the solar system, the system itself is moving through the Milky Way. As it travels, the Sun’s magnetic field interacts with the interstellar magnetic field and the mix of dust and gas that permeates deep space. Scientists believe the bow shock builds ahead of the leading edge of the solar system as it travels through the cosmos and the gas, dust, and cosmic rays of the interstellar medium slow down and pile up. While NASA research seemed to refute its existence, new research in Geophysical Research Letters found that the bow shock likely exists after all. The authors claim the solar system’s bow shock would be different to Earth’s, describing it as a “slow bow shock.”
B. Zieger and M. Opher, N. A. Schwadron, D. J. McComas, G. Tóth, “A slow bow shock ahead of the heliosphere”, Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/grl.50576, 2013.
Your education continues.

Thanks Dr. S. for bringing this to WUWT, “The sun is about to have a flipping magnetic field reversal.”
Good update, good review and good explanations for the newbies of the processes they are now hearing about. Help’s some of us solidify some basic information.

differential rotation and depolarization. Is depolarization based on rotation speeds?

Ya know maybe, solar max cycle 23 had a faster? bowshock as anticipated and this cycle 24 has a slower bowshock. Just goes with a weaker cycle?

Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 8:16 pmdifferential rotation and depolarization. Is depolarization based on rotation speeds?
not sure what you mean, but if mean polar field reversal, the short answer is ‘no’.

Ya know maybe, solar max cycle 23 had a faster? bowshock as anticipated and this cycle 24 has a slower bowshock. Just goes with a weaker cycle?
Larger cycles puff up the heliosphere, if that what you are after.

Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 8:16 pm
differential rotation and depolarization. Is depolarization based on rotation speeds?

not sure what you mean, but if mean polar field reversal, the short answer is ‘no’.
—
If our sun is a good example of differential rotation, and differential rotation can create depolarization how is does that work?
One of my recent articles was stating that since cycle 10 there has been slowing in the equatorial region of the sun. And differential rotation does fluctuate from cycle to cycle and is even slower during a cycle like 24 as compared to 23.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:13 pm
The magnetic field at the poles is the stuff of which sunspot are formed inside the sun.

The polar fields are dragged into the Sun by circulation of material. At depth the magnetic field is amplified by induction. The resulting stronger fields float to the surface and there assemble into sunspots. Sunspots decay and the magnetic debris is carried to the poles and the process repeats. So there is a mixture of global and of small-scale processes.
—————-
What exactly is this “stuff”, the constituent parts that make up this “magnetic debris”? I presume it is composed of masses of charged plasma particles that have a magnetic field induced by kinetic motion and or electric current. Are there aggregations of heavier nuclei behaving analogous to a lava lamp?

Leif Svalgaard says: Vuk is apt to misinterpret things, so now and then he must be brought back onto the straight and narrow road.

How true. However, Vuk knew perfectly well how the HCS is organised and its properties, but this being an interesting concept , he asked the question some of the readers may be puzzled by but reluctant to ask.
Introducing practical concept of the rotating magnetic fields:
Unrelated and not analogues to HCS, 139 years ago, one of the greatest and most beneficial discoveries for the humanity was made by Nikola Tesla. Physics and mathematics of rotating magnetic field (see animation in the link below) was pursued to a great detail at my university some decades ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_magnetic_field

still frozen…Part of the reason for the ice free caps millions of years ago was the continental configuration. With North and South America separated by a shallow sea rather than the isthmus of Panama, there is thought that the ocean circulation patterns mixed the waters differently…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was also Drakes Passage.Drake Passage and palaeoclimate

ABSTRACT: The effect of Drake Passage on the Earth’s climate is examined using an idealised
coupled model. It is found that the opening of Drake Passage cools the high latitudes of the
southern hemisphere by about 3°C and warms the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere
by nearly the same amount. This study also attempts to determine whether the width and depth
of the Drake Passage channel is likely to be an important factor in the thermal response. A
deeper channel is shown to produce more southern cooling but the magnitude of the effect is
not large. Channel geometry is relatively unimportant in the model because of a haline response
that develops when the channel is first opened up.

Introduction
South America and Australia separated from Antarctica between 20 and 40 million years ago, isolating Antarctica and the South Pole behind a continuous band of ocean water. The palaeoceanographic record shows that this separation led to the accumulation of glacial ice on Antarctica and an abrupt cooling of the ocean’s deep water (Kennett, 1977). Both effects persist to this day. The palaeoceanographic record gives every indication that the isolation of Antarctica was a major step in climate evolution.

Today, the band of open water around Antarctica is most restricted between the tip of South America and the Palmer Peninsula, a feature known as Drake Passage. In one of the earliest scientific papers written about the output of an ocean general circulation model, Gill and Bryan (1971) showed how a gap such as Drake Passage alters the ocean’s meridional circulation and heat transport. With Drake Passage closed, the ocean transports heat southward by moving warm water poleward near the surface. Cooling at the Antarctic margin leads to deep-water formation and the northward flow of cold water at depth. With Drake Passage open, warm upper ocean water from the north is unable to flow into or across the channel because there is no net east–west pressure gradient to balance the effect of the Earth’s rotation. The ocean’s ability to transport heat southward is thereby diminished. Cox (1989), England (1992) and Mikolajewicz et al. (1993) carried out similar experiment…..

The experiments address a fundamental question of how the circulation of the ocean works. Since the global overturning circulation is apparently sensitive to wind even in regions where the ocean has eastern and western boundaries, it may be influenced by wind outside the Drake Passage latitudes. However, our results indicate that the unique geometry of the Drake Passage latitudes does make the global circulation – and perhaps the climate of the North Atlantic – especially sensitive to wind there.

Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:27 pmOne of my recent articles was stating that since cycle 10 there has been slowing in the equatorial region of the sun. And differential rotation does fluctuate from cycle to cycle and is even slower during a cycle like 24 as compared to 23.
Solar rotation slows when there are many sunspots and differential rotation also. “the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation”, http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf

Carla says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:36 pmWhat is the polarity inversion line?
A sunspot group usually consists of some spots with one polarity and at the other end of the group some spots with the opposite polarity. If you draw a line separating spots with opposite polarities that is the ‘polarity inversion line’

Robert Taylor says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:39 pmAny chance of larger than usual solar flares hitting the earth from September thru December?
I don’t think these months are any special.

Richard G says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:44 pmWhat exactly is this “stuff”, the constituent parts that make up this “magnetic debris”? I presume it is composed of masses of charged plasma particles that have a magnetic field induced by kinetic motion and or electric current.
Yes, the stuff is plasma with a magnetic field that has been removed from the sunspot by motions in the atmosphere. It is misleading to [although you see it all the time] stress that a plasma is a mass of ‘charged particles’. All material bodies [yours included] is a mass of charged particles. What is different in a plasma is that the opposite charges can move around easily, whie in your body they are bound to each other.

Are there aggregations of heavier nuclei behaving analogous to a lava lamp?
No, the solar material as 99% Hydrogen and Helium and 1% heavier stuff scattered evenly throughout.

vukcevic says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:47 pm
“…he asked the question some of the readers may be puzzled by but reluctant to ask.”
—-
I subscribe to the notion that the only stupid question is the one isn’t asked.

Well since the earth’s magnetic field is not about to reverse (soon), this solar reversal implies (at least to me) that the net magnetic field in the sun-earth vicinity, will change somewhat (no idea how much). And that means that charged particles in our vicinity, will presumably follow slightly different trajectories, and land at different earth locations. Dunno how slightly this effect is, but this is part of the idea behind the Svensmark idea of “Cosmic” ray effect on cloud formation.

I get the concept, just don’t know if it of butterfly wing magnitude, or a detectable change.

Hi George
I have an inkling what might be happening, but I am always castigated for mentioning it. It is not so much polar field reversal that matters, polar fields are very weak, it is the change of the sunspot polarity (at the time of the sunspot minima) that has the effect you may have in mind.
I’ve found some effect in the data, but to understand why sunspot may be given a polarity sign here is the brief intro:
Sunspots are usually generated in pairs and are associated with rise and fall of toroidal magnetic field. Sunspot magnetic field lines emerge from the solar interior through one of a sunspot pair, loop through the solar atmosphere, then re-enter the photosphere through the other member of the pair.
In accordance with the Zürich sunspot numbering convention the 22 yr magnetic cycles start on even numbered sunspot cycles. Any 22 yr magnetic cycle consists of two 11 yr sunspot cycles, manifesting itself in reversal of the magnetic polarity of sunspots from one 11 yr cycle to the next, known as the Hale’s law.
Sunspot magnetic reversals correspond to the changing polarity of the toroidal magnetic field (usually denoted as a B component). Direction of the magnetic vector in the northern hemisphere coincides with the direction of solar rotation during even-numbered cycles, B>0, while in the southern hemisphere B<0.
Relationship between direction of rotation and direction of the magnetic vector B is reversed during odd-numbered cycles)
Now that said here is result of my findings:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Oscillations in the LOD of 1-1.5ms pp isn’t great, but maximum change across last 150 years is about 5ms pp.
How and why this occur, difficult to say but this illustration from Potsdam
may give a clue since there are geomagnetic factors involved.
I do not believe it to be coincidence, but I do expect a furious denial from our doc Svalgaard.

vukcevic says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:34 am
“In accordance with the Zürich sunspot numbering convention the 22 yr magnetic cycles start on even numbered sunspot cycles. Any 22 yr magnetic cycle consists of two 11 yr sunspot cycles, manifesting itself in reversal of the magnetic polarity of sunspots from one 11 yr cycle to the next, known as the Hale’s law.”

You are speaking in general I assume because there is no real 11 year solar cycle other than number 1 (perhaps that is why it is referred to as the “11 year” cycle). Also, why do you start your 22 year magnetic cycle on even SCs and not odd SCs? Is that just a convenience or does it really matter?

Hi Tom
Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is convention of referring to SC as ’11 years long’, I doubt that even the SC1 was 11 year long.
I think we see a bit more of the sun’s N. Hemisphere, and in the even cycles magnetic vector is in the direction of rotation (B>0), so positive sign makes some sense. On the other hand, the convention possibly agreed for simplicity of memorising sequence, to my simple mind the even numbers are ‘nicer’, so positive is OK with me, a bit unfair on the SC1 though.

Leif,
Thanks so much for your generous contributions, sharing unique and profound knowledge.

Every time you post(you must be a fast typist), many thousands read it and hopefully a big portion of them learn something(like me).
Helping so many acquire knowledge on legit science in a world filled with junk science and propaganda makes you an honorable man and is worth more than millions of dollars.

It is not known why and the ‘cycle’ is likely just a temporary thing; it didn’t exist before 1700 and may not exist after 2013.

I’ve often wondered about this and I have pointed it out on this site before, it is presumed that the suns natural state of activity is that it always produces sunspots. when it seems likely that it can be spotless for long periods, maybe even centuries.

Could it be the case that over a period of millenia, sunspots appearing on the sun are less frequent than a spotless sun, could a spotless sun be the norm?

Or could it be that the sun somehow becomes disturbed or that the activity rises enough during regular periods to produce a few centuries of spot activity and the usual state of the sun is actually spotless?

even so, I’d expect that the magnetic cycle would still exist even if there were no visible spots. possibly we may have to record faculae to replace the sunspot record.

I clicked on the link in Ben D’s comment at 6.03 pm on 5th August. It’s one of the first comments on this thread. Norton anti-virus immediately warned me of an intrusion threat. Perhaps the moderators could disable that url from the comment?

george e. smith says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:03 amthat the net magnetic field in the sun-earth vicinity, will change somewhat (no idea how much). And that means that charged particles in our vicinity, will presumably follow slightly different trajectories, and land at different earth locations. Dunno how slightly this effect is, but this is part of the idea behind the Svensmark idea of “Cosmic” ray effect on cloud formation.

vukcevic says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:34 amHi George I have an inkling what might be happening, but I am always castigated for mentioning it. It is not so much polar field reversal that matters

For cosmic rays it is precisely the polar fields that matter. The ‘cosmic ray cycle’ goes from solar max to solar max [from polar field reversal to polar field reversal]. Not from min to min. And has nothing to do with the ‘toroidal field’ and polarities of sunspots.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 8, 2013 at 8:15 am
……..
Hi docThe ‘cosmic ray cycle’ goes from solar max to solar max
Relationship of SSN and GCR count
GCR ‘effect’ is greatest and the most important (at the highest count) at solar minima and at such times of the Dalton, Maunder and other Grand Minima; since the alternative notion of possible ‘Grand Maxima’ is wrong (Dr. Svalgaard) , thus low GCR is of no consequence beyond 11 years or 0.1C.
I was writing about possible interaction of solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields as demonstrated by content of the geomagnetic data.
At the Earth orbit.(And that means that charged particles in our vicinity…. as distinct from previous sentence in the sun-earth vicinity) it is not solar magnetic field alone that is the only modulator of the GCR, but it is the resultant vector of the two fields.

vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 9:08 amAt the Earth orbit.(And that means that charged particles in our vicinity…. as distinct from previous sentence in the sun-earth vicinity) it is not solar magnetic field alone that is the only modulator of the GCR, but it is the resultant vector of the two fields.
Please, don’t try to pontificate on something you know nothing about [modulation has nothing to do with ‘resultant vector of the two fields’]. Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere [not near the Earth] and depends on the extent of the HSC way out there and on the polarity of the solar poles, see e.g slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Observations.pdf. The cosmic ray cycle alternates between flat-topped and peaked cycles depending on the polar fields.

Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere and then again near the Earth by its changing magnetic field.
I only ‘parrot’ what I have learned from you:
…
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2009 at 4:21 am

The observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C] argues for no additional modulation from passing through clumps, etc [spiral galaxy or not].

Leif Svalgaard Fig. 8: just shows that the Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay. This is not controversial and has little [if anything] to do with climate on timescale of centuries or shorter.

Even though it’s been stated the Sun’s polar magnetic flip hasn’t happened yet, both the graph at the top of this article and the one I linked to on solen.info show a zero-crossing or that the polar fields have crossed each other, respectively,.

I do understand that there is uncertainty in these latest measurements, but wouldn’t that also imply that there is some uncertainty in whether the poles have actually flipped yet? The article and NASA both state with no uncertainty that the poles have not yet flipped.

Just for my own information, how is it that it can be definitely stated that the flip has not yet happened, and what is the key indicator that the flip has actually occurred? What’s the criteria for a true indication?

the Hermit says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:15 amJust for my own information, how is it that it can be definitely stated that the flip has not yet happened, and what is the key indicator that the flip has actually occurred? What’s the criteria for a true indication?
By convention the polar fields are the average field in the line of sight seen from the Earth in an area on the disk which is 1/11 th of the diameter of the Sun from the edge [the limb] near the pole. See Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
The field undergoes an annual variation because the sun’s axis is inclined 7 degrees against the orbit of the Earth. The difference between the field measured at the North and South polar ‘black squares is one definition of the polar fields: That has already flipped: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Another definition [also valid] would be when there is not a shred left of the old polarity at both poles [the real ones, not the apparent ones]. That has not quite happened yet, but soon, we think.

A parrot also does not understand what it is saying
I never claimed I understood it, I just look at the data and observe what can be found there. Back to science:

McCracken, ex NASA:
The cosmic-ray record has been used to study the variations in the space climate, 1428–2005. Inversion of the data shows that the heliomagnetic field (HMF) near Earth increased steadily over the past 580 years,

Leif Svalgaard:
Now:
– Cosmic ray modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere [not near the Earth]
and before:
– observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C]
– Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay.

vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 12:07 pmMcCracken, ex NASA:
The cosmic-ray record has been used to study the variations in the space climate, 1428–2005. Inversion of the data shows that the heliomagnetic field (HMF) near Earth increased steadily over the past 580 years,
The parrot still does not understand anything [and thus can’t do science]. The modulation takes place in the outer heliosphere. As the HMF near Earth travels with the solar wind to the outer hemisphere we can use the near-Earth HMF as a proxy for what the HMF will be much further out. It is convenient to express the modulation in terms of the near Earth HMF because we can then compare it with other measures of the HMF [e.g. from geomagnetism], but that is all.

Leif Svalgaard, is in a dream wolrd when it comes to what is currently taken place on the sun and the future climatic implications.

Leif has no regard for past history which lends support that the sun is much more variable then what he keeps trying to convey and that the solar conditions during the MAUNDER MINIMUM were very weak(aa index near 0 ,solar wind 200km/sec) and how this correlated to the very cold conditions at that time. In addition he keeps trying to down play the significance of how very very weak solar cycle 24 is and will be going forward.

This flip is nothing like a normal flip and I would not be surprised (as the prolonged solar minimum continues due to angular momentum exerted by the planets on the sun, which Leif also says is not correct) that this may be the last flip , or at the very least the future flips are going to be even less pronounced then even this one.

Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.

This cycle could be weaker then solar cycle 5, and is much weaker then solar cycle 14 . Layman sunspot counts and graphs which are correct show this clearly to be the case.

The AP index and solar flux going forward will end this debate, and as of today we have solar flux around 105 at the maximum ! It should be north of 150.

Also since Oct 2005 the AP index has been extremely low and I expect sub 5 will be the rule in the not to distant future, at least post 2015.

Once the solar parameters hit the levels I have been saying (see below) I list the potential secondary effects which could take place as a result.

5. ap index 5 or lower with isolated spikes will cause the plates to be more unstable, more volcanic activity and earthquake activity. more shocks to the magnetosphere.

6. low solar in addition to being correlated with an increase in major volcanic activity and earthquakes in and around the solar minimums also can be tied to a cold pdo/amo. a cold pdo translates to more la ninas versus el ninos the result global cooling.

7. low solar actiivty having severe impacts to the Thermosphere and Ionopsphere.
Thermosphere will contract and cool substancially during a prolonged solar minimum which will inter act with all the other layers of the atmosphere.

This explanation is the ONLY explanation that can explain the many past abrupt climatic changes of the past both up and down. There are no other explanations from Milankovitch Cycles, to the Thermohaline circulation shutting down, to extra terrestrial impacts,to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases like methane or co2 etc etc.

The explanation above shows how the climate could be brought to thresholds if the solar parameters change in degree of magnitude strong enough and for a period of duration long enough following a sufficient number of years of sub- solar activity in general, which no other explanation is able to show.

Thresholds have to be met to flip the climate from one climatic regime to another. When the climate is in the same climatic regime changes are gradual and slow and always stay within particular boundaries.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 8, 2013 at 12:51 pmI am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.
No need to even consider one, as all you are claiming is your ‘expectation’ and wishes, without justifying or documenting any of them.

Are you sure that your current understanding is correct?
Your previous understanding (which you are now contradicting) where you said:
“Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay” and
“observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C]”
is physically sound for the following reason
Strength of heliospheric field at the Earth’s orbit (1AU) is orders of magnitude stronger than at say 100 AU. Depth of modulation is proportional to strength of the field; result is that more energetic GCR (greater velocity) would be repelled only by the stronger near field which is in accordance with the Lorentz force F = q v B (q – particle charge, v – particle velocity, B – magnetic field strength)

vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:12 pmYour previous understanding (which you are now contradicting) where you said:
“Earth magnetic field keeps cosmic rays at bay” and
“observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C]”
The geomagnetic field does not modulate the cosmic rays on the time scale of the solar cycle [and above 60 degrees of latitude the Earth’s field does not ‘keep the cosmic rays at bay’ anyway on any time scale] but on time scales of thousands of years so the ‘keeping at bay’ is a very slowly varying effect..

is physically sound for the following reason
Is not physically sound, because your mechanism is wrong. The reason for the modulation is turbulence and tangled fields that scatter the cosmic rays [the scattering depending on the square of the field strength], combined with a latitude dependence of the turbulent regions [the HCS in essence]

You are trying to wriggle out of the hole you fell in.
Few posts up the thread I said:
“GCR ‘effect’ is greatest and the most important (at the highest count) at solar minima and at such times of the Dalton, Maunder and other Grand Minima; since the alternative notion of possible ‘Grand Maxima’ is wrong (Dr. Svalgaard) , thus low GCR is of no consequence beyond 11 years or 0.1C.”

We know that 11 year cycle has only 0.1C effect, and since there is no ‘Grand Maxima’ there is no ‘Grand warming’ which could be possibly due to the GCRs.
Since ‘Grand Minima’ are considered beyond dispute, it is ‘Grand Cooling’ which could be only possible consequence of the GCR’s impact, that is if you think GCRs have any effect at all, which I don’t.
.

vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:41 pmYou are trying to wriggle out of the hole you fell in.
Typical trick. What has this new straw man [what you said] to do with anything?
How is ” low GCR is of no consequence beyond 11 years or 0.1C.” any different from
“if you think GCRs have any effect at all, which I don’t”.
At most you are trying to argue that there is not even a 0.1C effect.

I’m just being kind, giving you a helping hand out of the hole.
0.1C is not due to the GCR, but most likely the TSI.
For the rest of natural varibility look to balance/imbalance of cold/warm ocean currents and its driver the Earth’s tectonics in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere and sub-equatorial Pacific.

vukcevic says:
August 8, 2013 at 3:11 pmI’m just being kind, giving you a helping hand out of the hole.
0.1C is not due to the GCR, but most likely the TSI.
What hole? We were discussing your misconception of cosmic ray modulation. Now, you know that I have said that the 0.1C is the expected effect of TSI, but there are many people who maintain it is due to cosmic rays. So, my argument is, that even if that were the case the effect is too small to consider. You have a problem with that?

Now, of course Earth’s tectonics has nothing to with climate on time scales of interest. Or do you want to hijack this thread to further peddle your misconception?

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2013 at 11:19 amLeif’s predictions and thoughts will all be proven wrong before this decade ends when it comes to solar/climatic relationships and the absolute weakness of solar cycle 24.
Well, my predictions are based on evidence and reason. Your assertions sounds like wishful thinking with no basis is fact or science, but, hey: lots of people believe weird things, so you are in good company.